In his 2018 budget Scott Morrison announced a ban on cash transactions over $10,000, originally to come into force in July 2019, but now January 2020.
With this measure, Australia has joined what outspoken former Liberal Party economics advisor John Adams, who is forecasting an impending economic Armageddon, calls the “war on cash”—nations deliberately moving to a cashless society.
Going cashless is commonly promoted as an efficiency measure driven by technology, but it coincides with the global push for “bail-in”—the policy of averting bank failures by seizing the savings and investment funds of depositors and other classes of creditors.
Bail-in is one of a number of sinister developments in the international financial system, including negative interest rates, which drive people to keep their money in cash.
If it’s not in the bank, it can’t be bailed in.
And you can’t be charged for having it there, which is how negative interest rates work.
Morrison snuck a bail-in law through Parliament in February last year, the Financial Sector Legislation Amendment (Crisis Resolution Powers and Other Measures) Act 2018, with only a handful of MPs and Senators present when it passed and no recorded vote.
It authorises the “conversion or write-off”, a.k.a. bail-in, of so-called hybrid securities which are better known as bail-in bonds, which have been sold to hundreds of thousands of unsuspecting mum and dad investors and self-funded retirees. They are at risk of losing, collectively, more than $40 billion.
But the law included a massive loophole that the Citizens Electoral Council’s legal experts, as well as John Adams, Digital Finance Analytics Principal Martin North, and former APRA Principal Researcher Dr Wilson Sy, identified could be used to conduct a back door bail-in of deposits by stealth.
When Pauline Hanson’s One Nation senators notified the government they intended to close this loophole with an amendment that explicitly excluded deposits from any bail-in, the government and Labor Party opposition rushed the bill through the Senate when the One Nation senators weren’t present in the chamber.
Now, as the CEC revealed 4 March, the International Monetary Fund is saying that the 2018 law isn’t enough, and is demanding the government enact a full statutory bail-in regime that explicitly includes deposits. Moreover, the IMF is demanding that the government scrap all democratic safeguards over the bank regulator APRA, by which the Treasurer can give APRA directions and the Parliament can disallow an APRA policy. The IMF wants these safeguards scrapped, so that in the event that APRA orders a bail in of bank deposits in a future crisis, the government will not be able to block the order to protect the public.
This bail-in policy is guaranteed to destroy the public’s confidence that their banks will keep their money safe, and will drive people to take their money out and hoard it in physical cash or other forms.
So what are we seeing around the world coinciding with the rollout of a global bail-in regime? A massive and draconian crackdown on the freedom to use cash.
This is most obvious across the European Union, where the EU bail-in system called the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) came into force in January 2016.
According to a 25 February 2019 post by John Adams on his website entitled “The New Global Push for Negative Nominal Interest Rates”:
- France has legally prohibited cash transactions above €1,000;
- Spain has legally prohibited cash transactions above €2,500;
- Italy has legally prohibited cash transactions above €3,000;
- the European Central Bank ended the production and issuance of its €500 note at the end of 2018.
Also, the government of India eliminated 86 per cent of all physical cash throughout the Indian economy in 2016 by banning popular denominations of the currency. This created a political uproar in India, and fuelled suspicion of India’s bail-in law which was introduced the following year, the same time as Australia’s. The backlash was so great that the Indian government was forced to withdraw its bail-in law—the first time that has happened.
Sweden is 95 per cent cashless, and Vietnam has a plan to become 90 per cent cashless by 2020.
Another common justification for the war on cash is the need to crack down on the black economy, which is the Morrison government’s excuse. But this isn’t genuine. There are adequate measures in place to track cash-based criminality, which CBA and other banks have ignored, and the same Morrison government shamelessly protects those banks from real scrutiny and real consequences.
The fact remains that limits on cash trap people in banks where they can’t escape bail-in.
Join the CEC’s fight to defeat bail-in and force Parliament to pass the Separation of Banks bill that Senator Pauline Hanson introduced on 12 February, for a Glass-Steagall separation of banking from speculation, which will fully protect deposits from financial dangers and bail-in, and restore confidence in the banking system.
What you can do—fight for the Separation of Banks bill to stop bail-in
- Make a submission to the current Senate Economics Legislation Committee inquiry in support of the Separation of Banks bill. The submissions deadline is 12 April, but do it straight away. Click here for instructions on making a submission.
- Call the chairman and deputy chairman of the Senate Economics Legislation Committee to demand they hold public hearings on the Separation of Banks bill, so that the inquiry is transparent and they can get a proper understanding of the need for bank separation from real experts who are not beholden to the banks.
Chairman: Senator Jane Hume – Liberal
(03) 9428 1773
Deputy chairman: Senator Chris Ketter – ALP
(07) 3881 3710
by Jim O’Toole
Senator in exile, Rodney Culleton, after being locked in battle with the corporate Australian legal system since 2016, has filed an action in the High Court of the United Kingdom to have his expulsion from the senate overturned.
Culleton said yesterday he was excited the High Court had accepted his Constitutional argument in the first step to overturn the Australian High Court direction he be thrown out of the senate because of bankruptcy.
“I have never been bankrupt,” he said.
A single judge of the Federal Court issued sequestration orders against Culleton in 2017 freezing his assets in spite of a 21 day stay of proceedings being granted by the Federal Court.
Vexatious litigant and Perth businessman Dick Lester claimed Culleton owed him $200,000 over a failed sale contract on land, a claim pursued hotly by Culleton but he says Federal Court Judge Michael Barker failed to follow court rules, ignored all due process and did not look at his affidavits.
“When I was sworn-in as a senator on August 30, 2016, I swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth 2 of the United Kingdom, making an oath to uphold the law.
“I did not swear allegiance to the fictitious Queen of Australia.
“This ceremony was witnessed by the Governor General and his deputy.
“It should be noted the Commonwealth Constitution Act of Australia 1900, (UK) remains in force and cannot be repealed by an Australian Government.
“The High Court of Australia does not have the jurisdiction to throw senators or members out of Parliament. Either House has the only jurisdiction under s47 of the Constitution to deal with a Member’s qualification.
“The Constitution is everyone’s contract but we can’t get a remedy in Australian star chambers which don’t recognise the Constitution.”
The HCA has long drawn criticism from those being refused a hearing on Constitutional matters, with litigants claiming the court is not functioning as a Chapter 3 court as required by the Constitution.
Culleton gave the example of any senator or MHR who files an action in the HCA. It is unlawful for the court to hear any evidence relating to parliamentary procedures under s16 (iii) of the Parliamentary Privileges Act 1987, he said.
“As a result they threw out my Motion 163 without having jurisdiction because they are not sitting as a Chapter 3 court operating under the proper Crown.
“There is no such thing as the ‘Queen of Australia’.
Culleton has asked the Law Lords of the Queens Bench to examine his request to debate his senate Motion 163 of 2016 which the Solicitor General filed in the HCA.
The statement of agreed facts filed in the HCA by the Solicitor General states a NSW Magistrate, in Culleton’s absence could not imprison him for the alleged theft of a $7 truck key from his own truck.
This matter could have, if imprisoned, disqualified Culleton from the senate under s44 of the Constitution.
“Motion 163 of 2016 was a requirement passed by the House announcing that Attorney General George Brandis’ referral of November 7, 2016 to the HCA is faulty and that there needs to be further investigation into that faulty action, originally orchestrated by former Senators Parry and Brandis, which was never passed by any procedure of law, ,” Mr Culleton said.
He said the senate could not lawfully vote on Brandis’ December 7 motion at the time because there were insufficient senators present to form a Quorum under s22 of the Constitution and the relevant material was withheld from the chamber by Senator Brandis and Senator Pauline Hanson.
Culleton’s legal team remains in London until a hearing date is set by the full bench.
Harry Palmer speaks candidly with controversially sacked Senator Rodney Culleton about his rise, fall and pending resurrection in the Australian parliament. How he placed the Senate and High Court squarely behind their created hurdles thought to silence this patriotic, independent politician leading the charge to restore your parliament to the people. This interview is without parallel, riveting in content while exposing the backdoor Rod has opened the establishment thought locked and sealed tight…Click here to hear podcast
Harry Palmer presents an update on David Walter’s day in the pantomime of Cairns court discrediting the establishment … Exposes Pauline Hanson agenda to parachute James Ashby into the senate seat unelected …. AWU raid by police to uncover Shorten’s fingers in the pie …. GETUP foundation member Bill Shorten format the Labor party Gestapo …. CLICK HERE to listen
Speech in the senate August 9, 2017
I am well known for speaking up about immigration, but what isn’t well known is that I am not anti migrant. In 1996, I spoke out about the high rate of immigration from Asia that would have put us on a trajectory of losing our Australian identity. I support immigration when it is in the best interests of Australia, but we have made a mistake in accepting high levels of migrants from countries where democracy is unknown and accepting people who follow Islam and its political ideology.
One of the reasons we don’t know enough about the extent of the problems with Islamic immigration is that political parties don’t want to upset the Muslim vote. There is plenty of information collected, but it is not published and it is not available to senators like myself. In hiding the evidence of high unemployment and high dependence on social welfare, the government hopes you won’t discover the problems associated with Australian Muslim communities.
Despite the best efforts of Labor and the coalition, we have found some reliable information. The unemployment rate amongst Australian Muslims is more than double the average rate and it is more than 50 per cent higher than the nearest other major religious group. The unemployment rate for Muslim women is higher than that of Muslim men, making Muslim women the most likely religious group to be unemployed in Australia. This persistent high-unemployment level among Australian Muslims translates into high levels of income support in the form of payments made by the Department of Social Services.
I don’t have enough time to go into greater detail, but in densely populated Muslim suburbs, Muslims are paid high levels of taxpayer-funded support in the form of disability pensions, carer pensions, carer allowances and other forms of income support. Australian Muslims are a significant drain on the public purse, because of the rates of unemployment and dependence on social welfare. You will not hear these facts from Labor, because Labor is muzzled in pursuit of keeping the Muslim vote it already heavily relies on. We looked at the electoral areas containing 10,000 or more Australian Muslims, using 2016 census information. Every one of those 15 federal seats is held by Labor, and 50.4 per cent of all Australian Muslims live in these 15 Labor seats. It is the concentration of the Muslim vote, in a relatively small number of postcodes and electoral divisions, which gives Australian Muslims a much higher influence in Australian politics. What we know for certain is that Labor needs the Muslim vote to keep those seats in the parliament. The reliance on the Muslim vote in turn gives Australian Muslims an important say over Labor policy, and that influence is increasing because of the high birth rates among Muslim women. In fact, the number of Australian Muslims doubled in the decade between 2006 and 2016.
The young age profile of Muslims in Australia means that Muslims will increase naturally at a greater rate than any other. The concentration of Australian Muslims in a limited number of postcode areas, together with the high rates of birth, means Labor is now firmly in the hands of the Muslim voter. The demographic information is irrefutable. The only issue is how Australian Muslims will change the Australian Labor Party and Australia.
The Muslim vote has pushed hard for Labor to abandon its traditional support for Israel and they have kept Labor silent on the fate of Christians in the Middle East, particularly Maronite and Coptic Christians, who once made up 20 per cent of the Middle East and now make up less than 5 per cent. In the lower house seat of Blaxland, in NSW, there are 50,995 Muslims, or 29.2 per cent of the population. In the Sydney seat of Watson, there are 40, 903 Muslims or 23.4 per cent of the population. In Victoria it’s a similar situation. In Calwell, there are 29,324 Muslims and in Werriwa there are 21, 761 Muslims.
Labor has made a conscious decision to sell its soul for the Muslim vote. Every speech and every comment made by Labor is now made with reference to keeping the Muslim vote. Labor cannot speak out in opposition or act in government on issues affecting Australian Muslims because it fears losing seats in parliament. The numbers are so finely balanced in the lower house of this parliament that the loss of this small clutch of seats would see Labor’s chance of government end. Labor’s dependence on the Muslim vote is frightening, because a small but fast-growing group, opposed to our way of life, is bending Labor to its will. And communities of Coptic Christians and Lebanese Maronites and other Christians know how that story ends.
The Muslim vote opposes same-sex marriage because the notion of sexual orientation is against the fundamental teachings of Islam. So here is Labor’s dilemma: how does Labor get same-sex marriage passed, bury the hundreds of thousands of ‘no’ votes and not upset Muslims in Labor electorates? The best way forward is to let parliament decide, and then they will tell their Muslim voters they had to follow the party line—gutless!
It is common knowledge that areas with high concentrations of Australian Muslims are also areas associated with organised crime and acts of terrorism performed in the name of Islam. Labor knows this as well as any Australian, but it cannot speak directly, so it talks in riddles. Who can forget Bill Shorten talking to the cameras about combating extreme extremism and hoping those watching could see that he was like any one in a hostage situation. He was communicating in riddles, hoping not to offend the hostage takers—that is, the Muslim vote in Australia.
Australian Muslims take all the benefits that Australia has to offer, but Australian Muslims are underrepresented in the workforce and underrepresented in the Defence forces, instead preferring to fight for ISIL in Syria and Iraq. A federal investigation into the status of foreign fighters found 96 per cent had been on welfare benefits, including disability pensions, before leaving to fight overseas. It’s a disgrace that more Australian Muslims have gone to fight in Syria and Iraq than have joined the Australian Defence Forces to defend Australia. It is a disgrace our pension system is abused by Australian Muslims, and it is a disgrace the Department of Social Services is inept. It is undeniable that many Australian Muslims choose to be separate from other Australians living in communities. Many of them never leave these communities except when accessing government services and benefits and having holidays in their countries of birth.
One Nation supporters have a positive view of migrants when they are willing to become active citizens, to work and to make Australia a better place. However, we are not seeing too much of that from Australian Muslims. It would be comforting to think the problems we have with Muslim refugees and second-generation Muslims will resolve, given time and money, but there is no evidence anywhere in the world that this will be the case.
We need to learn the lesson from other countries who have accepted high numbers of Muslims into their country. They have found that, as the number of Muslims rise in a country, the tolerance of those Muslims to others in that country falls. Then, Muslims demand special treatment, which is given for the sake of appeasement, but is never enough. The demands just keep coming—discussions to change the words ‘race’ to ‘people’ in Section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution for the benefit of Muslims because they are not a race, they are a people.
There are no democratic Islamic countries in the world. If we don’t ban further immigration from Islamic countries, our way of life will be lost and the freedoms we take for granted will be gone.
from Gil Hanrahan in Melbourne
One Nation Senator Pauline Hanson, two of her senators and Attorney General George Brandis QC, have had criminal conspiracy charges filed against them in the Melbourne registry of the High Court of Australia.
The complaint was filed by former One Nation WA Senator Rodney Culleton on Friday June 23 and includes former colleagues senators Brian Burston (NSW) and Malcolm Roberts (Qld).
They have been charged under Section 43, Crimes Act 1914 (Cth).
The summons will be served by Mr Culleton on Monday, June 26.
Former senator Rodney Culleton, was sacked from the senate on Jan 12 after being found bankrupt by the Federal Court. His brother-in-law Peter Georgiou was nominated by the High Court to sit in his place as a One Nation senator for Western Australia.
Mr Culleton filed criminal charges of intent to attempt to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
Mr Cullleton accused the senators of “seconding a motion in the Senate on the 7th November 2016, to refer the question of the possibility that Rodney Norman Culleton would be subjected to a term of imprisonment by a Magistrate at Armidale, and the Senate did refer the said Rodney Norman Culleton’s eligibility to the High Court.”
The charge further reads “…..and you allowed the matter to continue, even after an agreed Statement of Facts was filed in that Court proving beyond any reasonable doubt that the said Rodney Norman Culleton was never under potential imprisonment and thereby in breach of your sworn public duty, attempted to pervert the course of justice in respect of the judicial power of the Commonwealth.
“ (this is) An Offence against S 43 Crimes Act 1914 (Cth). Under S 129 (5) Evidence Act 1995, the transcript of proceedings in the Senate are admissible against you.”
The charges were filed in support of a notice under 78B of the Judiciary Act 1903 of a constitutional matter alleging the Attorney General had withheld the agreed statement of facts of the referral to the courts by a motion instead of a mandated petition which in any case exceeded the 40 day requirement to lodge an objection to the eligibility of a sitting member.
The agreed statements of fact were not filed in the HCA by the Attorney General.
Culleton said the statements of fact clearly show that he would never have been sentenced to imprisonment for the alleged theft of a truck key two years ago.
“I got no say and the agreed facts were never presented to the bench,” he said.
“Brandis should have filed the agreed facts that were signed of off by the Australian Government solicitor stating that I would never have been sentenced.
“Sect 25 (1) (a) of the Crime Sentencing Procedure Act says the local court must not make an order of imprisonment if the offender is absent.
“This matter has never been held at trial but was only based on non-agreed facts put to the HCA by Brandis.
“He has used taxpayers money to unlawfully remove me from senate at the request of the banks.”
No date has yet been set for a hearing.
Senator Hanson was unavailable for comment.
During Culleton’s short tenure sitting in the senate he forced the High Court to restore the Queen in legal process.
He says the restored ‘Queen of Australia’, does not exist. Culleton has been a huge thorn in the side of the banks, calling for a federal inquiry into banking practices after presenting evidence of widespread corruption involving farm foreclosures.
View documents of charges lodged;
Member for Buderim and Queensland One Nation Leader Steve Dickson believes Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk has brought democracy to it’s knees in Queensland after refusing to answer a Question Without Notice during budget week claiming it was actually two questions.
“On Wednesday I asked the Premier ‘While every day Queenslanders and businesses are finding it difficult to pay electricity bills and keep their heads above water financially, how many Queensland government employees are receiving taxpayer funded salaries in excess of $200,000 per annum?’ It was a very straight single question”, Mr Dickson said.
He added, “In part the Premier replied. ‘There are a couple of questions there; I will take the last one first. I am happy if the member wants to put that question on notice and I will get back to him about it. I do not have that information off the top of my head.’ There were not two questions, only one. It was a question about the number of government employees on salaries in excess of $200,000 when considering that so many people struggle to pay their power bills!”
“The Premier was obviously rattled by my question, as I understand salaries account for more than 40 per cent of the entire state budget. But more particularly it’s the high priced bureaucrats Queenslanders should know about. I asked the question two days ago. The Premier needs to answer the question before she heads overseas tomorrow. Queenslanders deserve an answer”, Mr Dickson said
ABC Four Corners will air the One Nation imbroglio; The sacking of Senator Rod Culleton; and extremely dodgy High Court proceedings on Monday night. The High Court has
no distance between its Judges and the executive arm of government. Tune in to the ABC TV at 8.30 pm.
ABC Monday 3 April 2017 – 8.30pm
“We don’t cheat, we don’t lie, we are upfront with the people.” Pauline Hanson
When Pauline Hanson and her One Nation party stormed back into politics as a major force, it was done on the promise they would be nothing like the “mainstream” political parties they and their supporters loathe.
“We bring a fearlessness. We don’t care what people think… we just speak the facts.” One Nation Senator Malcolm Roberts
But on Monday night Four Corners will reveal the brutal backroom politics ripping into Pauline Hanson’s One Nation party.
“If the public knew what went on in the Party I don’t think they’d have anything to do with One Nation.” Former Candidate
Reporter Caro Meldrum-Hanna investigates the party’s inner workings and explores how former supporters have been left disenchanted, asking for Pauline Hanson to “please explain”.
“A political party is supposed to be transparent, democratic, inclusive and the party at the moment is not any of those things.” Former Party Worker
A must-watch investigation.
By Robert J Lee in Canberra
The Liberal and Labor parties are terrified by the extent of the Muslim vote in Australia, particularly in NSW and Victoria.
The Pickering Post last year reported the Muslim bloc vote across both states could affect the outcome of a federal election.
Up to 15 per cent of the primary vote in 15 seats is controlled by the Muslim community and Defence Minister Christopher Pyne’s recent reaction, denigrating Pauline Hanson for her comments about stopping immigration from Muslim countries reveal how scared the Liberals are of offending Islam.
Independent Member for the Far Northern seat of Kennedy, Bob Katter has a bill prepared to do just what Hanson is frightening the Liberals and Labor about.
Katter’s bill is modelled on US President Donald Trump’s controversial anti-Muslim immigration bill that would stop residents of identified Islamic countries from entering Australia.
It will be tabled in the House of Representatives in May.
The Vaucluse vacuum, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull fares no better. His continued public support for Islamic citizens in Australia, more so those in Liberal-held electorates, demonstrates the extent of his fear.
Turnbull wants to continue with the importation of 12,000 ‘refugees’ from Islamic countries, in spite of 500 so far having been rejected on security grounds.
The religion of these ‘refugees’ remains largely unknown, a little bit like the section of the Australian Census form asking for religious status.
The Liberal Party seems oblivious to 80 per cent of Australians rejecting the UN-orchestrated immigration plan, to further inject a large number of Muslim ‘refugees’ into a once homogenous society.
Like a broken record Turnbull, at every opportunity claims Australia is the most successful ‘multicultural country in the world.’
This is correct in part thanks to the ‘White Australia’ policy that ensured the majority of immigrants from the 1950’s to the late 70’s originated from European countries.
Turnbull’s claim has not been relevant since the early 1980’s coincidental with the corrupt regime of the infamous Labor Prime Minister Bob Hawke, whom Australia has to thank for the ethnic ghettos of Sydney and Melbourne accompanied by rampant gangland crime.
To expect Muslims or any other person to truthfully reveal their religious ideology is a pipe dream of the Bureau of Statistics. It is easy to mark in ‘Christian’ without fear of checks or balances.
Thus the number of real Muslims living in Australia is anybody’s guess although the ABS claims there are roughly 500,000.
In 2014-15, of the total of 13,756 humanitarian migrants:
- 2,335 were from Iraq
- 2,232 were from Syria
- 1,813 were from Afghanistan and
- 331 were from Iran.
These four majority Muslim countries made up 48.8% of the humanitarian intake. (source Business Insider)
During the 2007-13 Rudd-Gillard-Rudd era of Prime Ministership an estimated 120,000, mainly Muslim refugee immigrants entered Australia by air. It is believed most of these immigrants remained in the country, in addition to the normal immigrant inflow.
Australia’s immigration policy does not discriminate on the grounds of ethnic origin or religion.
Perhaps we should ask the United Kingdom or France how many radical Muslims does it take to make a bomb or drive a car?
Pictures from Google images
Katter calls for minor parties to come together & don’t forget the Culleton factor
KAP Member for Kennedy, Bob Katter watched Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party’s performance in the Western Australia (WA) election closely. It is Mr Katter’s little party, the KAP – who stand to gain or lose the most from One Nation’s performance in the looming Qld election.
Mr Katter said, “Anyone in Qld who thinks One Nation is dead in the water is badly misreading the situation. The LNP is toxic in WA, but the difference in Qld is, so is the ALP (as well as the LNP).
“The disaster of One Nation giving all their preferences to Liberals, and voting with them all the time in Canberra… (This brought down Tony Windsor who was always voting with the ALP), One Nation is beginning to look like a LNP lamb in wolf’s ‘Third Force’ clothing, the Hanson Party must realise the reason people vote for them is because they’re not one of the majors.
“But when in Canberra, One Nation has taken a stand on the following (and these were all burning issues):
“Came out against a banking Royal Commission,
“Came out in support for the sale of Kidman to Shanghai Cred (whoever their partners are is irrelevant),
“Voted for the Bash up the Workers Legislation (ABCC),
“Voted for the Bash up the Farmers and Tourist Operators legislation (the Backpackers Tax).
“Not only does this portray One Nation as an LNP supporter, but it portrays them as LNP.
“But if you look like a duck and quack like a duck, then you will get shot like a duck.
“We would like One Nation not to duck, but listen to calm, reasoned and experienced counsel. This is the kind of counsel we always reply upon.
“Also, people have underestimated the reaction to throwing WA Senator Rodney Culleton out of the Senate. Cool heads would have seen the disastrous ramifications of this.
“We shall be urging all of the Third Force parties in Australia, whatever their strengths and weaknesses, to come together.
“All the little parties have one strength in common; they were not the ones who exported our industries and jobs overseas and imported workers into Australia to take what’s left of our jobs. That was (believe it or not) mostly the ALP, and most certainly the LNP.
“It will be a great tragedy for this nation if the Xenophons and Lambies, the KAPs and all the other non-major parties do not have a coming together.
“Our strengths are in our differences but one thing we all have in common is we tenaciously oppose the extremism of the Free Market ideologues and their privatisation, de-regulation and globalisation.
“To the people of QLD, don’t worry about WA; you’ve made a decision to leave the majors and as the Johnathan Thurston and his NQ Cowboys say — stay in the fight!”
Hansard November 24, 2016
Pauline Hanson addresses the racial Discrimination Act
Senator HANSON (Queensland) (10:48): I have listened to some comments in this chamber today and all I hear about is racism. Let me make my point very clear. When I first came into parliament I stood on the ground of equality for all Australians—equality regardless of race, colour or creed. Also, what I have tried to make quite clear is that, yes, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people were the first peoples of this land here. Yes, Australia was colonised and people came here. Since then, many migrants from around the world have sought to make Australia their home. They have come here to join us and to be one of us, and I welcome that. My first husband was actually Polish. He was a migrant after the Second World War who came to Australia for a new life with his mother.
I have had involvement with people of all different cultural backgrounds. The manager of my shop—my fish and chip shop—was also a refugee from Laos. I had the highest regard for her and we worked very well together. I had properties that I actually rented out to an Aboriginal lady and her child. My children grew up in the same street with Aboriginal children. My association will all different cultures has been one that I have cherished. My parents were people that welcomed anyone into their homes, and that is how I was taught. I have respect for so many different cultures and the people. Respect is earned by the person, not purely based on who they are or their race. It must be earned.
People say, ‘Why are we standing up here and speaking out against the words “to offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate”?’ Today times have changed greatly. People have come to our country. I remember most, years ago when they came, there were the Greeks, the Italians and different ones. They were called wogs. They keep telling me, ‘My god, we actually had everything thrown at us. We were abused, but we said no. We got on with it.’ Because when the Aussies had a go at them in that Aussie way they became part of the community—they assimilated. I remember all the guys at the fish markets—the Greeks and the Italians. We all had jokes together and it was taken in a good sense of humour. I think we have lost that in Australia. I think people have become so precious that you cannot say or do anything anymore. Otherwise, you will be dragged off to the law courts.
You talk about racism. Let’s define the word ‘racism’. A racist is a person who believes their race to be superior to another. Understand the meaning. When you criticise or you have a point of difference, do not counteract that by saying it is a racist comment. I am fed up with people in this parliament and even outside this place calling me a racist, yet they cannot define one word that I have ever said in policy or anything that is racist.
I remember years ago, when I was first elected, I went to have a meeting with the Aboriginal elders. It was set up with the media. I remember they came out and called me a pig in mud and white trash. The media actually printed it. Then, when I actually spoke to them about it, they said, ‘Well, what’s wrong with that?’ I can well imagine if I had reversed the words, but I never did. What I am hearing now is all one way—it is one-sided. Let’s have a debate on this.
Senator McKim says here, ‘If we change it and get rid of 18C, what do you want to say that you can’t say now?’ I will say, through you, Madam Deputy President, a case in point is those students. What did they say on the Facebook page? They said it is ‘segregation with segregation’. So they were shut down. What is that? That is not an insult. It was pure fact. They actually went to the university and they wanted to go into a room and use computers that were purely marked for Aboriginals only. That is racist in itself. Why didn’t they go and complain about 18C? Why wasn’t something done about it? It is not; they are protected because we have laws in this country now that protect anyone who is not of a colour or anyone from another race criticising the Australians. It has become now, in Australia, reverse racism. That is why Australians are fed up with it. That is why they are saying they want change. It has gotten to a point where you cannot have a say anymore. I am okay; I am in this chamber. I am protected. I can say what I want to say here, but not if I go outside this chamber and say it outside, like many Australians. We cannot have an opinion. We cannot say anything anymore.
Senator Dodson made a comment. He said up until 1967 he was not included in the census, and that was true, but the Aboriginal people did have the vote prior to that. I believe it was Western Australia; please correct me if I am wrong. The whole fact is that Australians believed at the time of the referendum in treating Aboriginal people equally. That is why the majority of Australians—around 97 or 98 per cent—voted for that: they wanted equality and they did not want the separation anymore. Senator Dodson says that Aboriginal people were not included in the Constitution. Actually, section 51(xxvi) of the Australian Constitution, in the time before the referendum, said that the Commonwealth shall make specific laws for any race other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders. The framers of that Constitution, our leaders who drew up the Constitution in the 1890s, put in that ability to make specific laws for any race other than Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, and that was because of the Chinese and Afghanis in this country—mainly the Chinese—because of opium and the immigration. That is why it was put in. It was not put in for any reason to do with Aboriginal people at all. It was to do with that.
Senator Dodson talks about words—they can be hurtful and words are what are happening in Syria and the fighting around the world. I do not believe it is just about words. I think it is about hatred of a religion that is casting their hate and their political ideology onto the rest of the world. That is what is behind this. I do believe that we will have the same problem in Australia if we do not address it and have the right to debate it to find the answers so that each and every one of us can live in peace and harmony on our streets and not live in fear of being dragged before the courts. I am pleased to hear that Senator McKim is following my Facebook page. He made a mention of it. Maybe he will learn a lot more from how the Australian people really feel.
What I am saying here today is: is it really going too far to have an opinion that we offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate someone? Maybe the people in Australia should start looking at others of a different religious background to us, so that they may start to think twice before they make their comments on the streets towards our young ladies who wish to not cover themselves up or dress in the fashion of a short skirt and who are then told they are nothing but the meat market. There are women on our beaches who cannot go swimming, because others are offensive towards them. There is a lot of this going on this country, yet there are people in this chamber who will not acknowledge it, and I am sick and tired of seeing them stand up for one race or other people in this country, who do not see themselves as Australians and who have no intentions of ever assimilating. We are told constantly, time and time again, that we must be tolerant. Well, I have had it up to here with my tolerance. I believe that we have a right to have an opinion, have a say and debate it. I will go back to the point: I welcome anyone who has come to this country to join us, to assimilate and to respect our culture and way of life. I stand by that. It is a shame that we have come to the point where we need to debate this issue, but that is where our country is headed. I seek leave to continue my remarks later.
Leave granted; debate adjourned.